+

I’m a public health technology researcherSheana Bull, PhD, MPHUniversity of Colorado DenverColorado School of Public Health

If we knew what we were doing, we wouldn’t call it research

Albert Einstein

+What is a public health technology researcher?

Use research and program evaluation to Consider technology based approaches for interventions to

prevent HIV/STI; Heart disease; Skin Cancer Develop interventions using these technologies Use research and program evaluation methods to see if they

work

Why bother? Funding funding funding How to best direct limited resources How to make your efforts worthwhile

Here are some examples of the types of things we have worked on in the past or that are current

+Youthnet

+

+CyberSenga

+The 411 on Safe Text

An R21 pilot study to test a mobile phone intervention for young black men in Philadelphia

Text messages via cell

HIV KnowledgePositive attitudes and norms Re:Abstinence, condom use

Increased self-efficacy for negotiating abstinence & condom use &for remaining abstinent, &for using condoms. Increased intentions to remain abstinent or use condoms

AbstinenceCondom Use

1R21MH083318-01

+Formative work

Focus groups are not the only approach for design!! They remain a strong

tool, but not the only one

What is it? Before the program

begins Often to

Make sure you ‘know’ your audience-who they are and where they are

Make sure you know the ‘right’ technology

Design the ‘look and feel’ of your program

Observation

Research online

http://www.pewinternet.org/

Think of the next project you want to do. Who do you want to serve? What tech Do they use the most? What do you need to know about them?

+Formative work

Usability

Trialability

Don’t forget your alpha and beta testing

Walk throughs, ‘talk aloud’ procedures, field observations

+Process evaluation

Document implementation of your program—is it working the way you planned?

Do you need more staff? More sites? Better/different marketing?

Activity Friendblaster Modified RDS Viral + Modified RDS

Invitations sent 6447 37 173

Friend requests accepted

958 (15%) 13 (35%) 22 (13%)

Participants enrolled (completed consent, BL survey)

19 (0.3%) 1 (3%) 7 (4%)

+Lessons from Sex Quiz

We learned we can REACH a lot of people (6000+ in a few weeks)

We learned how to TAILOR information using algorithms If sex partners= or <1, then risk=0 If male and sex partners=male, then risk=1

+Lessons from Smart Sex Quest

Reaching large numbers online is one of the main advantages of the Internet However, while providing anonymity may be optimal, it

may prevent you from learning how well your program works

Only 24% of those who enrolled in SSQ returned for a F/U: Allowed men to remain anonymous Men had many e-mail addresses; may not have checked

accounts

Subsequently we decided to always ask for identifying information and contact information Allows for greater accountability—we must protect privacy

+Youthnet

+Lessons learned from Youthnet

• Youthnet• Persons exposed to the program had significant increases in

norms for condom use

Increases in condom

use

Partner Norms

Neg Outcome

Negotiation Self-Efficacy

Use Self-Efficacy

Condom Norms

Pos Outcome

0.41

Intervention 0.06

+

A computer-based program delivered on kiosks in five Denver community settings serving English and/or Spanish speaking Latinos Theories: Role Modeling, Norms, Attitudes, Self-efficacy;

Social Support; Environmental support for healthy behavior

+

+

+

Outcomes LUCHAR

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

T1 Comm T2 Comm T1 Clinic T2 Clinic

>=5F&V

>PA

Significant increases in fruit and vegetable consumption, p<0.05; in physical activity, p,0.01

+CyberSenga

+Lessons learned from CyberSenga

Still in field

Can recruit and engage youth in ‘resource poor’ settings

May have an easy to scale and replicate intervention

+The 411 on Safe Text

An R21 pilot study to test a mobile phone intervention for young black men in Philadelphia

Text messages via cell

HIV KnowledgePositive attitudes and norms Re:Abstinence, condom use

Increased self-efficacy for negotiating abstinence & condom use &for remaining abstinent, &for using condoms. Increased intentions to remain abstinent or use condoms

AbstinenceCondom Use

1R21MH083318-01

+Lessons learned from the 411

Can recruit and engage youth at high risk

Can deliver an intervention on mobile platforms

Intervention has potential—still needs to be tested for efficacy

+Just/Us

Uses Facebook to deliver content and help users create content about HIV and STI prevention Really different from the “health educator” approach We recruited youth and then they post responses to the

initial content Debate, dialogue and conversation means content isn’t

proscribed Tries to work with networks of individuals; if this is a

conversation among friends, it may be more valuable Meets people where they are at times convenient for

them

+Lessons learned from Just/Us

Can recruit using social media

Can deliver an intervention using social media

Does it work???

+So, what can a PH technology researcher help you to do? Understand the right technology to utilize for the audience you

want to work with

Consider different approaches to reaching your audience Face to face recruitment? Online recruitment? Peer recruitment?

Help in designing program and making sure it runs as intended

Develop appropriate objectives for your program

Show whether and how well your program works

Identify those elements of your program that are the most successful

+Objectives and Outcomes Evaluation

SMART Objectives Specific Measurable Appropriate/Realistic Time bound

Logic Models Show known inputs and expected outcomes of your

program

+Research or Evaluation?

Research: Is about new discovery—is

this a new, never before tried initiative? Never with this audience? Never in this setting? What is the

cost/effectiveness? Is this a replication of an

intervention that hasn’t been yet widely adopted?

What will it take to get as many people/agencies as possible to begin using this?

Evaluation: Does this intervention

work for this audience in this setting?

Does this intervention work as well in this setting/for this audience as it did elsewhere?

Does it cost the same to do this here as it has elsewhere?

+What your PH technology researcher may not be able to do: Information technology

Programming/code Technological platform development

Creative design Branding Marketing Filming, blogging, texting

Health education Motivational interviewing Intervention delivery Peer education

Connect to diverse audiences Elderly, youth, people of

color, people with disabilities

Fundraising Outside grant acquisition Event planning

+Discussion

What do you most want a researcher/evaluator to do?

How to identify/partner/contract Pub Med http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ Local Universities

Public Health, Psychology, Sociology, Anthropology Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

National Network of Prevention Training Centers

http://depts.washington.edu/nnptc/